JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Mehar Chand, Auditor, working in Defence Pension Disbursement Office at Rewari was tried by the learned Special Judge, Rewari for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) for acceptance of Rs. 250/- as bribe from Balbir Singh, a retired pensioner. Mehar Chand was found guilty and convicted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act vide judgment dated July 23, 1991 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on both counts. Sentences of fine were also imposed and the two sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. During the days of the occurrence, the appellant was working as Auditor PAO (ORS). Between June 1 and July 27, 1989 the appellant was posted at Rewari in the office of Defence Pension Disbursement Officer. 3. The prosecution case is that Balbir Singh (PW 6), a retired Subedar, from the Army who had retired in 1981 due to some disability, was to receive Rs. 6,669/- on account of medical bills (?). Balbir Singh was to get this amount from the office of D.P.D.O. Rewari. He came to Rewari and contacted Mehar Chand but he was put off on one pretext or the other. On July 20, 1989 Mehar Chand told Balbir Singh that unless some money was paid to him, his work could not be done. Balbir Singh told Mehar Chand that he had no money and he could not give any bribe, Mehar Chand demanded Rs. 700/- but after a lot of haggling agreed to accept Rs. 250/-. Balbir Singh contacted Shri M.P. Bidlan, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari and complained against Mehar Chand. On July 27, 1989 Shri M.P. Bidlan contacted the police and a trap was laid to bribe the appellant. Rs. 250/- in currency notes was handed over to Balbir Singh and he was told to give a signal after he had handed over the money to the appellant. A memo was also prepared with regard to this aspect of the case. Thereafter, S.I. Bhoja Ram (PW-7) was deputed to join as a shadow witness. As per plan, Balbir Singh (PW-6) and S.I. Bhoja Ram (PW-7) along with other police officials went to the office of D.O.D.O., Balbir Singh went inside the office while S.I. Bhoja Ram (PW-7) acted as a shadow witness. Thereafter, S.I. Bhoja Ram (PW-7) was deputed to join as a shadow witness. As per plan, Balbir Singh (PW-6) and S.I. Bhoja Ram (PW-7) along with other police officials went to the office of D.O.D.O., Balbir Singh went inside the office while S.I. Bhoja Ram (PW-7) acted as a shadow witness. Balbir Singh handed over the money to the appellant who put it in his trousers pocket. On Balbir Singhs signal, S.I. Bhoja Ram signalled to the police party, the investigating officer led the party to the office and apprehended the appellant. Money was also recovered from his possession. A memo in this regard was attested by Balbir Singh, S.I. Bhoja Ram and Shri M.P. Bidlan. After completing the other aspects of the investigation and obtaining sanction from the Controller of Defence Accounts, the appellant was sent up for trial. 4. At the trial charge was framed against him under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined Yoginder Kapoor, Personal Assistant to Controller Defence Accounts (PD), Merrut Cantt (PW-1), Draftsman Ram Kanwar (PW-2), HC Satbir Singh (PW-3), C. Har Karan (PW-4), Accounts Officer D.S. Bhagat (PW-5), Balbir Singh (PW-6), S.I. Bhoja Ram (PW-7), Inspector Jai Singh (PW-8) and closed the case. 6. The accused was examined without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code He admitted that he was Auditor PAO (ORS) and was posted at Rewari in the office of D.P.D.O. He also admitted that Balbir Singh (PW-6) was to receive Rs. 6,669/- from the office of D.P.D.O. but denied all other circumstances which appeared in prosecution evidence. In defence Mehar Chand pleaded as under :- "On 20.7.1989, I received the pension papers of Balbir Singh, which I completed on the same day and prepared work-sheet Ex. PD (sic) and that after the completion of the work, I handed over all the concerned papers to Shri Sham Lal Bakshi, Section Officer and that on 24.7.1989, a cheque for payment to the complainant was issued and sent to Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Sihlan Branch, I never demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant." 7. When called upon to enter defence, the appellant did not examine any witness. The learned Special Judge, Rewari accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant. 8. When called upon to enter defence, the appellant did not examine any witness. The learned Special Judge, Rewari accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Sub Divisional Magistrate was an important witness but was not examined at the trial. The original version of the complainant which the complainant had placed before the said Magistrate was not forthcoming and had been purposely withheld. Later on the police had concocted a story to implicate the appellant. It was submitted that by the time the occurrence had taken place the money due to the complainant had already been transmitted to the bank and, therefore, there was nothing that the appellant could have done for which he was alleged to have demanded a bribe. There was no reason for the appellant to ask for a bribe as the bill had already been cleared and the cheque sent to the concerned bank. 9. In cases of bribery of officials by harassed citizens, three ingredients must necessarily be established. It should be, firstly, shown that the official was in a position to perform certain official acts of which the aggrieved party would have received some benefit, secondly, the official had agreed to perform those acts and had also agreed to accept money as reward and lastly, the money had been paid to the official as bribe and recovered from his possession. In the present case the appellant had relied upon Ex. DB. This is a calculation sheet relating to the account of Balbir Singh (PW-6). It seems there had been some enhancement of pension payable to Balbir Singh w.e.f. January 1, 1986 and arrears had to be determined and paid. Ex. DB is a due drawn statement where the official had calculated the amount of pension due and from that amount deducted the amount of pension drawn to arrive at the figure of arrears of pension. The amount due was Rs. 56,819/- and the amount drawn was Rs. 50,150/-. Therefore, the outstanding amount of pension was Rs. 6,669/-. To this had been added the amount of pension for the coming month of Rs. 1,367/-. The total amount of Rs. 8,036/- had been included in the consolidated cheque for a number of other pensioners of Rs. 1,21,089.25. The amount due was Rs. 56,819/- and the amount drawn was Rs. 50,150/-. Therefore, the outstanding amount of pension was Rs. 6,669/-. To this had been added the amount of pension for the coming month of Rs. 1,367/-. The total amount of Rs. 8,036/- had been included in the consolidated cheque for a number of other pensioners of Rs. 1,21,089.25. The cheque for this amount was dated July 24, 1989 and had been issued in favour of Manager G.G.B. Sihlan (Gurgaon Gramin Bank). 10. From the above, it will be seen that what was due to the complainant was not any amount on account of medical bills but arrears of pension of Rs. 6,669/- plus enhanced pension for July 1989. It seems Balbir Singh (PW-6) was ignorant of the amount which he was to receive and yet he had wanted to bribe the official. Balbir Singh stated that he contacted Mehar Chand on July 20, 1989 when the deal was struck and had later contacted Sh. M.P. Bidlan, Sub Division Magistrate. The Magistrate had been sympathetic but on account of his pre-occupation could not help Balbir Singh. It was ultimately on July 27, 1989 Balbir Singh contacted the police and the trap was laid. However, Balbir Singh was also ignorant of the fact that on July 24 the money had already been sent to Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Sihlan. 11. D.S. Bhagat, Accounts Officer appeared as P.W. 5 and in his cross- examination stated that pension papers of Balbir Singh had been handed over to Mehar Chand on July 20, 1989. Mehar Chand completed the papers on the same day and put them before Shri Bakshi, Section Officer, who then put the papers up before the witness. On July 24, 1989 a cheque regarding the payment of pension was issued and sent to Gurgaon Gramin Bank for payment. This witness proved the photostat copy of the work sheet Ex. DB, original of which was in his file. 12. It was possible that the fault of the appellant was in not informing Balbir Singh about the outcome of his case regarding arrears of pension. Balbir Singh was under the impression that he was to be released some amount on account of medical bills. DB, original of which was in his file. 12. It was possible that the fault of the appellant was in not informing Balbir Singh about the outcome of his case regarding arrears of pension. Balbir Singh was under the impression that he was to be released some amount on account of medical bills. The appellant could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment if he had only been sensible enough to convey to Balbir Singh the exact amount due and advised him how to get the money. From the calculation sheet Ex. DB, it is obvious that some very elaborate calculation had been carried out to determine the exact amount which was to be paid to Balbir Singh on account of arrears which came to Rs. 6,669/-. To this amount had been added the enhanced pension payable for the current month of Rs. 1,367/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 8,036/- was due to be paid to the complainant and this was part of the amount of the cheque which had been sent to the concerned bank. The calculation sheet also reveals that the arrears upto June 30, 1989 had been included in the sum of Rs. 6,669/-. Therefore, the disbursement of the amount would have been along with the enhanced pension for the month of July, 1989 and must have naturally been paid to the complainant on August 1, 1989 or thereafter. 13. The above aspect of the case had at all not been considered by the learned Special Judge who concentrated on establishing the trap laid by the police and the recovery of the bribe from the possession of the accused. Since the basis for payment of bribe had not been successfully established and the complainant was not even aware that what was due to him was not medical reimbursement but arrears of enhanced pension, a major ingredient of the office had not been established. 14. It could well be argued that the appellant should have helped the complainant by informing him of the amount due and telling him to wait for its payment instead of agreeing to accept money for doing something which he had already done. There would have been force in this line of argument if the complainant had not waited for seven days from July 20 till 27 to report the matter to the police. There would have been force in this line of argument if the complainant had not waited for seven days from July 20 till 27 to report the matter to the police. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was pre-occupied with other work and did not come forward to help the complainant immediately. The Magistrate also did not come forward to testify at the trial. Therefore, it appears that the complainant had nursed a sense of grievance against the appellant before reporting the matter to the police after a delay of seven days. In the meanwhile, the appellant had already prepared the bill, got the cheque prepared and despatched it to bank for payment. Consequently, it must be held that the recovery of the bribe was not the result of a spontaneous desire of the complainant to help in checking the corruption but part of his plan which had been working in the his mind for a week and which came to fruition when he contacted the police after seven days. In such cases, the investigation officer do prepare a meticulous trap, which is always a success but if the background which led to the execution of a successful trap is shaky or stands on a doubtful ground then the trap cannot be said to be a successful one. 15. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Appeal allowed.